John Roberts’ Secret Trump Help Revealed in Huge SCOTUS Leak
www.thedailybeast.com
A memo obtained by The New York Times indicated the chief justice wanted to act quick—and decisively—on Donald Trump’s presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.

The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the *Times. *He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.

Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times— his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        171·
        2 months ago

        The biggest blunder of the framers was assuming we’d never form factions (i.e. parties). The assumption was that the branches would oppose each other, not collude.

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          171·
          2 months ago

          I don’t think that’s their fault. They specifically addressed a two party system in multiple writings (they didn’t like it) in addition to explicitly stating that they expected future generations to update the constitution as necessary to protect the republic from those who would seek to undermine or replace it. We didn’t heed their warnings and now here we are.

          To be clear, I don’t think the framers were infallible or able to see all possibile challenges that our nation would face. However, they seem to have been pretty damn good at learning from history and that’s something modern Americans are absolutely abysmal at. For all their faults they have a lot to teach us in that respect.

          • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
            14·
            2 months ago

            they expected future generations to update the constitution as necessary to protect the republic from those who would seek to undermine or replace it.

            The problem with this is that it requires people in power to vote to limit their own power. And while there have been some, certainly, who have been willing to do so, getting a supermajority of people willing to do it is simply not something I see as remotely possible anymore.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 months ago

              It assumes a democracy of well informed voters that is capable of creating enough Cincinnatus figures that they can reliably voted in. That’s not the worst assumption for them to have. It’s a similar assumption to what fucked over the ussr and ccp. The problem is that the average person only cares about bread and circuses and that when the going gets rough or they start losing a certain percentage of the population is comfortable abandoning democracy for perceived security.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 months ago

              One could argue that situation would occur if we were smart enough to repeatedly elect those kinds people

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          3·
          2 months ago

          At least one of them (maybe Jackson but I’m probably wrong on who) specifically warned about political parties

          • frezik@midwest.social
            5·
            2 months ago

            It was Washington. However, Washington also tended to side with Hamilton against Jefferson in practice, and those two would quickly form political parties that are the ancestors of the modern ones.

            The “Founding Fathers” were far from a monolithic block of philosopher kings like American mythmaking likes to portray.

            Duverger’s Law was developed in the 1950s and 60s, so it wasn’t understood way back then.

          • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
            41·
            2 months ago

            Yeah Andrew Jackson was not a founding father. He was a person who owned hundreds of human beings as slaves and conducted genocide against the native population. He was a total piece of shit really. Trump ordered Jackson’s portrait hung in the oval office during his presidency.

            • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org
              3·
              2 months ago

              You think Trump knew him as anything but “the face on the $20 note”?

              If he had gotten office in 1914, he’d have put Grover Cleveland’s portrait up for the same reason.

              • frezik@midwest.social
                3·
                2 months ago

                Trump knows Jackson, actually. Jackson is one of his favorite Presidents. Jackson was also a raging asshole, so that makes sense.

                That Jackson portrait that was hung up during Trump’s tenure? They made sure it was there when Trump met with Native American leaders, and the intended insult was heard loud and clear.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 months ago

              You aren’t wrong on any count but it should be noted most of the founding fathers were slavers and conducted genocide on the native population. Jackson was just particularly shameless about both whereas someone like Jefferson was clearly uncomfortable with slavery, just not as much as he was with the idea of not keeping his fellow human beings, some of whom were his biological family, as slaves.

    • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      242·
      2 months ago

      The supreme court makes a mockery of democracy (intentionally) and should be treated with scorn instead of reverence.

      • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
        45·
        2 months ago

        I think Oliver also offered him $1 million a year from Oliver’s personal moneys. Which is not an insignificant amount of money for a justice who isn’t corrupt.

        • nul9o9@lemmy.world
          31·
          2 months ago

          In the past, he signaled he’d retire because he wasn’t getting paid enough, meaning he needed to be bribed to keep a conservative justice on the SCOTUS.

          If you take it at face value, then he should have jumped at John Olivers’ offer.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            The only thing Thomas likes more than money is respect. He would never take Oliver money because it would publicly embarrass him. He hates embarrassment more than anything.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              81·
              2 months ago

              Embarrassment suggests he has a sense of shame. He has already conducted a number of shameful acts already (taking gifts) without any sense he’s embarrassed.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.worldEnglish
                7·
                2 months ago

                When he was in front of the Senate confirmation hearing he was absolutely embarrassed. He knew everyone was watching while he was accused of sexual harassment. He basically stopped interacting with the media because he was so furious with how he was portrayed publicly. Dude hates being publicly shamed. Doesn’t mean he’s wise enough to stop doing shitty things.

                • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah he’s not shameless. You can say a lot of negative things about him, but he has a hell of an ego and being publicly criticized and embarrassed pisses him off. Though nothing seems to anger him like being pitied.

                  Shameless and integrityless are different things and he has shame but not integrity.

      • pubquiz@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        This one would be newer. A truth lost on us plebes who have to pay for things.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      10·
      2 months ago

      Why take a bribe from John Oliver, who would immediately turn around and disclose that Thomas accepted it on his television program, when he could just go ask Daddy Harlan Crow for an identical RV and then not disclose it?

      The Supreme Court is corrupt to the core. There’s an inability to hold them accountable for anything. The system of checks and balances functionally doesn’t exist for this “apolitical” branch.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    1062·
    2 months ago

    “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times.

    That’s all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      17·
      2 months ago

      Yeah that’s not even enough for me to know if it’s controversial. I, also, think SCOTUS will have different opinions on separation of powers.

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        16·
        2 months ago

        While I agree we need more, this may not sound like much to you or me… but a SCOTUS judge saying it basically states he already has made up his mind about where he stands before even taking the case. They are supposed to be impartial at all times

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          4·
          2 months ago

          Exactly. This is a conservative-majority SCOTUS saying, “We decided long ago what we were going to do about this issue and many others. Nothing you can say will change our course. This conversation is over.”

      • tacosplease@lemmy.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        When Thomas said he thinks they will have different views, he wasn’t saying “we” as in the various supreme court justices. That may be a more reasonable statement.

        Thomas said “we” the Supreme Court will have different views than both Chutkin and the DC appeals courts. He was saying SCOTUS will probably overturn the two lower courts.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 months ago

      this would be very “study shows parents more tired than non parents” energy

      We all know what they had very stupid reasoning, the only question here is “how stupid?”

    • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
      40·
      2 months ago

      Term limits won’t help with systemic corruption, because replacing corrupt judges with new corrupt judges would be the natural response.

      Enshrining impeachment as a regular and viable strategy for actual corruption would be.

    • slickgoat@lemmy.world
      9·
      2 months ago

      Make them elected and dark money will guarantee that the self-same bastards are elected. You think that democracy is a roadblock to these people?

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      191·
      2 months ago

      Imagine how much worse off we would be if that kid actually had manage to not miss Trump. We would likely still have Biden running for president against God knows what.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      163·
      2 months ago

      Realistically killing john roberts would save american lives, who can say if good or bad.

    • Atlas_@lemmy.world
      95·
      2 months ago

      You could have made the same point without being disgusting by saying impeach.

      I understand your frustration. I really, really do. But the trouble with political violence is that it doesn’t end there. Look at our justice system - it isn’t about making people whole, it’s about getting even. That’s what the other 40% of America will do. I don’t want a civil war in my lifetime.

    • warbond@lemmy.world
      34·
      2 months ago

      Bro, please stop. It’s a bad look, it’s morally and ethically wrong, and it hurts our chance at never having to hear Trump’s name ever again.

      You should be banned and your comment should be deleted. If you want to be a dumbfuck, please do it into the mirror like your apparent role model, Travis Bickle.

      • Malek061@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 months ago

        Maybe politicians should think about violence when they destroy so many peoples lives for their corporate overlords.

  • AbidanYre@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    2 months ago

    Are they going to vigorously investigate these leaks just long enough to find out it was one of the conservatives and then drop the whole thing?

      • RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world
        4·
        2 months ago

        1. That’s what they said last time.

        2. At this point the majority has moved so far right they are beyond conservative and well into autocratic and flirting with authoritarian.

        That is to say there may be conservatives who are willing to blow the whistle to try to keep this stink off of themselves.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          That’s what they said last time.

          Last time it was to force a vote they wanted to go right, which it did.

          This one is actually embarrassing to the court.